Same - Subsequent Failure Of Executed Consideration

If the promisor receives a consideration for his promise, the fact that it subsequently diminishes in value, or becomes worthless, does not release him from liability on his promise.64 The transfer and delivery of a note, for instance, by the payee to the maker of another note, in exchange therefor, is a valuable consideration for the latter note, and the fact that the former note subsequently becomes worthless does not constitute a failure of consideration.65 So, if a patent is sold, the fact that it afterwards becomes valueless because of improvements does not release the purchaser from liability for the purchase money.86

62 Jenness v. Parker, 24 Me. 289; Lloyd v. Jewell, 1 Greenl. (Me.) 360,

10 Am. Dec. 73. And see Black v. Walker, 98 Ga. 31, 26 S. E. 477; Bennett v. Pierce, 45 W. Va. 654, 31 S. E. 972. See "Vendor and Purchaser," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § S08; Cent. Dig. §§ 862, 877-899.

63 Rice v. Goddard, 14 Pick. (Mass.) 293. And see Frisbee v. Hoffnagle,

11 Johns. (N. Y.) 50; McAllister v. Reab, 4 Wend. (N. Y.) 483; Durment v. Tuttle, 50 Minn. 426. 52 N. W. 909; Steinhauer v. Witman, 1 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 447; Gray v. Handkinson's Heirs, 1 Bay (S. C.) 278; Bell's Adm'r v. Huggins' Adm'rs, 1 Bay (S. C.) 327; Trask v. Vinson, 20 Pick. (Mass.) 110; Chandler v. Marsh, 3 Vt. 162; Cook v. Mix, 11 Conn. 432;" Tillotson v. Grapes, 4 N. H. 448; Tyler v. Young, 2 Scam. (I11.) 447, 35 Am. Dec. 116; Davis v. McVickers, 11 I11. 327. But see Sunderland v. Bell, 39 Kan. 21, 17 Pac. 600; McLeod v. Barnum, 131 Cal. 605, 63 Pac. 924. See "Vendor and Purchaser," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) §§ 15, 808; Cent. Dig. §§ 16, 877-899.

64 Rice v. Grange, 131 N. Y. 149, 30 N. E. 46; Harmon v. Bird, 22 Wend. (N. Y.) 113; Perry v. Buckman, 33 Vt. 7; Potter v. Earnest, 45 Ind. 416; Smock v. Pierson, 68 Ind. 405, 34 Am. Rep. 269; Blackman v. Dowling, 63 Ala. 304; Byrne v. Cummings, 41 Miss. 192; Daniel v. Tarver, 70 Ga. 203; Dowdy v. McLellan, 52 Ga. 408; Bean v. Proseus, 3 Cal. Unrep. 558, 31 Pac. 49; Topp v. White, 12 Heisk. (Tenn.) 165. See "Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) §§ 85, 86; Cent. Dig. §§ 399-402.

65 Rice v. Grange, 131 N. Y. 149, 30 N. E. 46. See "Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) §§ 85, 86; Cent. Dig. §§ S99-402.

Recovery Of Money Paid

Ordinarily, if a person voluntarily pays another money, he cannot maintain an action to recover it back. This rule, however, does not apply where money is paid under a contract, and the consideration fails. The money may be recovered back in such a case.67